BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM

We can write in Obama. We can write in Ron Paul or Bloomberg or whoever.

There's real genius in that!

Seriously. What has Ralph Nader done to harm our democracy?

Absolutely nothing- in fact he's done a great deal of good throughout his life & the questions he raises in his campaigns need to be raised.

The real positive harm is done by the cretins who keep pissing their votes away by voting for him!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM

I voted for Nader, McGrath. I would not have preferred Gore over Bush. Or Bush over Gore. I prefer the system collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM

And at least I vote.

I could join the majority of Americans and not bother, because I know it is a pointless, futile exercise that has nothing to do with changing a corrupt political system that is gutting the nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:36 PM

Hear, hear, GG! I understand your feelings on that perfectly. You are so right about the duopoly gutting the nation.

And, however...I also understand the feelings of those who would vote for Gore or Obama or Hillary Clinton...or whoever they choose to vote for.

What I don't understand is the total lack of respect and goodwill you have and express for each other mutually. It is possible, after all, to disagree with someone's political views and yet not descend to the level of holding them in utter contempt and hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 12:57 AM

"So I find it odd that you, like so many keep casting him as David to Clinton as Goliath."

I don't remember casting either of them as Biblical characters but while it is true that Obama has gained alot of support, he is still the new kid on the block compared to Hillary. Washington D.C. has been her turf for a very long time. In that way, she does enjoy an advantage. She is very experienced and has probably seen every dirty trick in the book. From Obama's perspective (or from his campaign headquarters) she is a monster with tentacles that reach far and wide. ...or she is the monster they are presently battling. No big deal.

"...a memo from the Canadian consulate noted, "Goolsbee said he has always been impressed with Canada, sharing his experiences which have included trips to Montreal and Toronto as part of the Yale debate team and visits to Vancouver with his wife." Soooooooo? This is hardly newsworthy.

Power, a foreign policy adviser to Obama, told The Scotsman that Hillary was "a monster" and the BBC that Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan was merely a "best-case scenario."

Where did the BBC quote come from? Its the first I have heard it. I guess I've missed something.

Actually, I'd probably vote for Hillary (this week) for just that reason. She can go head to head with McCain. I'm not sure if Obama can. His people just do not have the experience and the sophistication to tackle a monster like Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Slag
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 01:01 AM

Well Don, that's democracy for you. Or maybe, that's politics for you! I can't really figure out which but, yeah, Dennis had to go home.

Re Nader, I wish him long life because as the years go by and the evidence for some kind of an ecological disaster keeps mounting we are ALL going to find out how right he is. Kinda scary. A few years ago I could have never conceived of myself saying that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: mg
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 01:31 AM

I don't disagree with Hillary's views in general. I think she is a very dangerous person to have as president. I fear for the country. But her proposals sound good to me. It is not contempt I feel but fear and dread. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:31 AM

Obama may be the new kid, but he hasn't been the underdog since voting started, so I find it odd when people attempt to put him in that light.

Little Hawk, to understand the level of contempt that some have for Nader in this forum doesn't even come close to comparing how it was in 3D life for those of us who supported Nader in 2000 and especially 2004. We were treated as political pariahs, and on more than one occasion, I had people who came knocking on MY door canvassing, screaming in my face when I told them politely 'no thank you, I'm voting for Nader'.

I've never seen anything like it in all my years. It was pretty damn shocking, and it made me realize how easy it was for the Nazis and fascists to take over Europe. Same sort of political and social intimidation.

I went through it to a lesser extent this year, especially at work when I told my work colleagues, who expect EVERYONE to be a Democrat (St Paul is a big Democrat town), that because I am a political independent, I don't caucus for either corporate party. Most told me I had to. Or that I should just do it so I could choose between Clinton and Obama.

It's pretty damn scary, how much like sheep the American electorate already is, and well brainwashed into believing that they must participate in the corporate duopoly's 'lesser of two evil' strategy that suppresses both voter turnout AND the power of independent candidates and third parties.

People can't even conceive of why someone would 'waste their vote' to participate in ANY political activies outside the duopoly system.

So, the answer as to why they behave the way they do is because that is how they have been programmed to think, including a few of the most vocal Nader haters here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 08:55 AM

Who also happen to be the most vocal Bush haters, Republican haters--they have just lost it since Bush won under dubious circumstances in 2000. Except, they rarely blame the people who shoulder most the responsibility for it--the Reagan/Bush I & Clinton appointed Supreme Court (again, the corporate duopoly's Supreme Court), and Gore & the Democratic party Beltway establishment, who keeps dissing the party's leftist grassroots activists, to cater to the corporate right wing of the party.

Now, they are all vicious over which corporate right wing candidate is best--Clinton or Obama.

These folks are the people who mirror the Rove Republicans, pure and simple.

I mean really, it just keeps getting worse with them every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:37 AM

Maureen Dowd comments:

"The Clintons are known political cat burglars. They pilfered Republican jewels in the '90s, and Hillary has purloined as much as she can stuff in her pantsuit from her husband and Barack Obama.

She changed to Change. She co-opted "It's time to turn the page" and "Fired up and ready to go." She couldn't wait to shoplift the words "yes" and "can" from Obama's trademark "Yes, we can!" — (which he appropriated from Cesar Chavez) — even though she was cagey enough to put them in separate slogans, "Yes, we will!" and "Americans still have that can-do spirit."

Bill, master thief, got in on the act, too. After Obama said that his election would tell the world that America is back, Bill said that Hillary's election would tell the world that America is back.

Although the only solid voting bloc in Wisconsin Hillary seemed to get was women over 60 years old, she did seem happy that the press had "finally," as she put it, scrutinized him. America's pretty boy was getting muddied up.

The Clinton camp has spent days trying to undermine Obama's chief asset, the elegant language that has sparked a generational boom.

"We're seeing a pattern here," Hillary enforcer Howard Wolfson said, in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Yeah, we are. She's losing, and looking for anything to bruise Obama. ..."

---

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:44 AM

I would not have preferred Gore over Bush. That's quite consistent with what I wrote. "Many of the people who voted for Nader" isn't the same as all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM

Ya know, Gigi, I admire your independence of thought, such as it is. It raises serious issues for reflection.

The math of voting for Nader, for example, is very unappealing from the perspective of herd-think, because there is this underlying mechanism of "social proof" which people often resort to when they are not into sorting out their own thoughts or inspecting data personally. And a lot of people are not -- it has become, through whatever reason, too painful to rub two thoughts together.

But from the perspective of stating clearly and honestly what you see as the preferred candidate -- the integrity of the individual voter --voting for Nader becomes compelling, just as for many thoughtful people La ROuche was the only candidate that made sense on the same basis.

I think the current election is fortunate in this respect -- I disagree with your assessment of Obama's character. I think he has many of the positive traits that Nader has and that La Rouche has, but he lacks their political flaws, to a large degree. None of this is absolute, of course. The notion that someone could come away with an opinion so different from your own may make you gnash your teeth with anger, but that's a personal problem, not part of the issue.

I don't suppose you guys have seen the top side of 40 degrees Faranheit lately?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Scared
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:55 PM

Wanna see something really scary? Research "Obama's Church" It'll take a little shine off his halo.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Peace
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 07:58 PM

Yeah. A member without the cajones to post under his own name uses the moniker GUEST,Scared, and you think THAT provides you with credibility? Then you quote a cheap blog? GET A LIFE.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:08 PM

Nice try Amos. But there is no comparing Nut Case LaRouche to Nader.

Nader has an actual record--a stunning one, in fact.

LaRouche? A cult following and jail time. A man without a vanguard movement to front. Everyone who ever worked closely with him has called him out on his lies, and some have described him as a likely FBI plant.

OTOH, about the worst Nader's former colleagues who turned against him have said is 'he was mean'.

But good on ya trying to pull the guilt by association thing w/your Nader/LaRouche comparison, Amos.

But Homey don't play dat tune neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:19 PM

Actually, I gotta say that when we get calls from La Rouche's machine, they make more sense sometimes than most Republicans.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:29 PM

A sure sign you have never looked that closely at the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:34 PM

You mean he really exists?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hillary a 'Monster'???
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM

OTOH, about the worst Nader's former colleagues who turned against him have said is 'he was mean'. Well, I've never been a colleague of his, but I've worked within the same organization, and I can add that he's a zealot, monomaniacal, inflexible and, often, very ill-informed.